[ucaetano]

Sure, but does the additional cost of licensing to individuals make economic sense?

It almost sounds as if people want companies to be forced to make their content available at a desirable price to anyone in the planet, no matter the cost of it.

In other words, people are talking as if they have the "right" to see that content.

[Karunamon]

Rather, when dealing with post-scarcity goods, the seller has two, and only two options: Monetize the people that are getting that content, or spend money and resource playing pirate whackamole.

One of these two things makes money.

We're halfway through the 2010s, if a random web developer can paywall content and take money for access in hours, then the BBC can manage. I want to give them money. They won't let me.

Their loss. My conscience is clear when I watch Countdown through a UK proxy.

[794CD01]

Both make money. If the second option didn't, as you disingenuously imply, they wouldn't be trying to stop the piracy.

[Karunamon]

That implies a rational business. Rationally, new content ends up on the internet, unencrypted, within minutes of air, and all the whackamole in the world doesn't change that.

All the anti-piracy methods practiced by major content providers is inherently irrational.

[Fargren]

Not all of them. The ones that convince people that piracy is immoral may actually get some people to buy content.

[794CD01]

That argument is asinine. Murder happens even though we outlaw it and enforce the law. That doesn't make the law ineffectual or "irrational".

[Karunamon]

...Please try to understand how "asinine" a comparison between copyright infringement and murder is.

[794CD01]

Or maybe you should understand the point of the comparison. If it truly makes you feel better, pretend I said speeding.